Well, 15th July 1969 to be precise.
Francie McCloskey remembered 50yrs on.
The police said he was hit by a stone. The cover-ups were from the outset.
"Belfast" vs "Good Friday" agreement
- Thread starter Thirsty
- Start date
Well, 15th July 1969 to be precise.
Francie McCloskey remembered 50yrs on.
The police said he was hit by a stone. The cover-ups were from the outset.
Wolfie - sure we know for a fact they "negotiated with terrorists" pretty much from the get go. That was just a slogan.
Surely the IRA were the most highly skilled disciplined wahh wahhh (insert whatever chest beating tripe you want) force, would they not have respected the authority of the army council?? Fair enough, there's always going to being the sectarian luncatics who won't rest until there's ethnic cleansing but the notion that you continue for another 25 years to keep them on side is just not good enough. The IRA took it upon themselves to conduct a campaign of terror with no political mandate, because they were the legitimate government of Ireland, keepers of the 2nd Dail - it would be laughable were it not so deadly. If they had shut up shop in the early 70s then NI would have been spared most of the butchery - they didn't, it wasn't, the reasons for continuing were not justifiable, as Duke has said their continuing of the campaign did nothing to help their community, the opposite in fact.
I'm not saying it was justifiable.
I'm saying it is ludicrous to think they could have stopped 'anytime'.
It is not a regular army. The only way to get the campaign to stop was to enter political negotiations (by the front door, not the back door).
As I'm highlighting above the RUC was a discredited police force in nationalist areas. I doubt even the Duke dare contradict that?
The evidence is there to see. Interventions by Hume, an intervention by Clinton in the US. Intervention by Reynolds, even John Major moved from the Thatcher hardline. Once that happened, the political side of the Republican movement took the ascendency at leadership level and we are where we are now.
How soon would the conflict had ended if at the Sunningdale Agreement, prisoners were to be released?
Impossible to say, but it surely would have given impetus to a possible early end of the conflict?
Instead, the political centre and the British government sought to exclude, isolate, criminalise, etc the paramilitaries. This is understandable, but in the end, it undoubtedly prolonged the conflict and ultimately they ended up negotiating with the paramilitaries 25yrs later, releasing prisoners.
Duke of Marmalade
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,449
@WolfeTone
Perspective my dear Wolfie, perspective.
There are two threads to this discussion - (1) the culpability of the BA - (2) the respectability of current SF given their PIRA baggage.
The BA were tasked over about 30 years with containing an urban guerrilla war and a potential for sectarian divisions to morph into civil war. Not a task for which they or anybody else are particularly well trained. But I am with Garret that despite the unforgivable lapses by rogue elements we are mightily grateful that they got the job done. I have conceded their grave lapses, I sense you will never concede that on balance their intervention saved us from ourselves.
On the other hand I will never buy into your argument that SF's PIRA baggage is on a par with the historical baggage of FF/FG.
Perspective my dear Wolfie, perspective.
There are two threads to this discussion - (1) the culpability of the BA - (2) the respectability of current SF given their PIRA baggage.
The BA were tasked over about 30 years with containing an urban guerrilla war and a potential for sectarian divisions to morph into civil war. Not a task for which they or anybody else are particularly well trained. But I am with Garret that despite the unforgivable lapses by rogue elements we are mightily grateful that they got the job done. I have conceded their grave lapses, I sense you will never concede that on balance their intervention saved us from ourselves.
On the other hand I will never buy into your argument that SF's PIRA baggage is on a par with the historical baggage of FF/FG.
Yes, unjustifiable which is why I'm declining the SF invitation to worship at their altar - now we're getting somewhere. It was within the gift of the Republican movement to stop - are we to believe the "securicrats" would forever goad them into further violence?, that's a handy excuse isn't it...... giz a break.
Gunmen with no votes, and they wanted to be brought in the front door to issue their demands. The arrogance of the Provos was outstanding, and it hasn't gone away y'know.... They had talks in 72, they could've had talks any day of the week if they were serious.
You posed that they were terrorists - to legitimise every off duty RUC man killed. I'm saying that's OTT. Sure ye'll shoot guards in the South too, equal opportunity murderers. A SF minister for justice - make your blood run cold.
Hurrah they cried on the Falls. Are they an undefeated army or a raggle taggle of terrorists who had to be lied to to get them into the peace process?, quite hard to ride those two horses. This could have been wrapped up before Thatcher ever came to power - demands that could never be met were never met - isn't that a shocker.....
Well the PIRA were blowing up the town, a 32 county socialist republic was not being dished up to them. Of course they settled for less in 1998, just the 25 years of pointless killing. As keepers of the Second Dail I know this burden weighed heavy on them......
Any....day.....of....the.....week they could have negotiated - even Dev had to lock up the lunatics in the Curragh eventually, are you telling me we had 25 years of killing in case, what, 100?, hardliners wouldn't like it?? We still have dissident republicans now, we had the Real IRA & Omagh, there's no clean way of making the break, poor show from the undefeated army that this is the best they could offer the people.
Once again - on the contrary Duke.
The BA were instrumental in preventing a sectarian bloodbath, that much was certain.
But they were also instrumental in prolonging the conflict. As mentioned above, it became soon apparent which community were the 'trouble makers', no doubt heavily influenced by information supplied by the RUC... no doubt you accept that the RUC was a discredited police force in Nationalist areas?
So terrific, well done the BA from preventing the sectarian meltdown. But their mere presence did not taper the anger of two communities wanting to tear each other apart.
By the time BA were deployed the RUC had already killed three people including 9yr old Patrick Rooney, and the cover-ups and lack of investigation were in full flow.
Along with RUC baton charges of civil rights marches etc, how long did it take for BA (taking information from RUC) to become distrusted in Nationalist areas?
That the conflict raged for so long is not solely down to one side although that is the narrative being peddled. Even after the Hunger Strikes, it was obvious that some form of political intervention was needed, yet when Hume entered talks with Adams he was pilloried by media, political opponents as they set to destroy any and all peace initiatives.
Last edited:
Attacking civil rights matches, internment, torture, shoot to kill, collusion with loyalist paramilitaries, house raids, framing innocent people for murder, massacres, cover-ups, criminalisation, summary executions, censorship - these were the policies and practices that 'goaded' people to join the IRA right up tíl 1994.
It was political interventions, first by Hume, then others that brought the conflict to an end.
You are talking to someone here who thinks that none of the political violence in the pursuit of an Irish Republic was justified.
It has been an abject failure and pointless loss of life at every turn. Even in 1916 they should have figured how useless violence would be, they even admitted it in the Proclaimation "In every generation the Irish people have asserted their right to national freedom and sovereignty; six times during the past three hundred years they have asserted it in arms."
Surely thats a clue? Six times! Surely, hey it doesn't work? It's never worked, but they still went ahead anyway.
Some like to put GOIRA on a pedestal as having achieved Irish independence. Rubbish! It was transport workers that refused to carry BA personnel and equipment, it was the collapse of court system, it was non-payment of taxes, it was ostricisation of RIC personnel, it was the overwhelming vote for SF - these were the peaceful actions of the Irish people that let Britain know Ireland was lost.
Collins and GOIRA just inflamed sectarian tensions with mass murder and ethnic cleansing of Protestants, ensuring that the country ended up divided.
Cemented further by the recent conflict that followed as a consequence of establishing two sectarian states.
Duke of Marmalade
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,449
@WolfeTone As expected you were not to be changed from your central credo - British bad.
But to be fair to you, the British should not take the hump at this. You also believe: Padraig Pearse and his pals bad, GOIRA bad, Dev bad, that Cork Fella bad, PIRA bad, FF bad, FG bad, Michael D bad.
Though come to think of it I don't think I have heard "SF bad". Come on, givuz a full hand.
But to be fair to you, the British should not take the hump at this. You also believe: Padraig Pearse and his pals bad, GOIRA bad, Dev bad, that Cork Fella bad, PIRA bad, FF bad, FG bad, Michael D bad.
Though come to think of it I don't think I have heard "SF bad". Come on, givuz a full hand.
Last edited:
No problem Duke - SF Bad!So what now?
The premise of yours, and others point of view, is that I'm some hardcore Shinner!
Yet my clear and obvious derision of all violent Irish Republicanism has clearly passed you by.
I'm open to vote for any party. I do set some conditions, that they are active on an All Ireland basis and I agree in general with their social and economic programmes.
I just don't buy into the "it was all the PIRA's fault, they could have stopped anytime" mantra. This is just lazy analysis that has been propagated to the point of absurdity at this stage. While simultaneously those that proffer this view cannot see the hypocrisy of the President of the 'Republic' still fawning over the deeds of someone like Thomas Clarke whose organisation planted bombs indiscriminately in public places killing a child in the process.
If they could have stopped "anytime", what was it that happened that did actually make them end the armed campaign? Just a random notion? Gerry woke one morning made a few phones calls to the Army Council and said "that's it, we're finished now". To which the others on the AC replied "yeah! We were just thinking the same thing! What a coincidence!!"
And having randomly declared a ceasefire why did the British government feel the need to release paramilitaries from prison?
Why did they disband the RUC and introduce policing reforms?
Why did they agree a power-sharing arrangement for government? The IRA had stopped, why not just revert to the Unionist led government?
Nah!, I happen to think its a little more complicated than what is being proffered here.
The cycle of violence is hard to break, it is not something that occurs out of random notions that may occur at "anytime".
Not prosecuting those in authority for heinous crimes of murder doesn't help matters.
@Duke of Marmalade
Lest anyone think I am a hardcore Shinner and not open to alternatives, how would my previously expressed view, above, sit at a SF Ard Comhairle meeting?
I'm a Home Ruler.
Lest anyone think I am a hardcore Shinner and not open to alternatives, how would my previously expressed view, above, sit at a SF Ard Comhairle meeting?
I'm a Home Ruler.
It's not that it was all their fault, but that fairly quickly anything they had to bring was achieved; i.e. most of the Civil Rights aims were achieved, unionist domination was over (powersharing), there was no longer a threat of being burned out by your neighbours. The point is that zero extra was achieved in the following 25 years, that demands to be handed a 32 county socialist republic were never going to happen, and so it proved.
Simultaneously nothing, they are separate arguments, you don't have to hold one to hold the other. I'd prefer we look to the future as a European nation, leave the events of 100 years ago to history books, I'd even leave events pre 1998 to the history books but it looks like thats not an option either....
This would be a reasonable argument if I was making out Grisly was the devil incarnate, it was all his fault - you might say "ah but what about the hawks". I'm saying the RA and they alone are responsible for their actions (cos it weren't the bleedin' tea ladies were planting the bombs was it??), they collectively could have stopped....guess what, they eventually did....hows about that then. If they'd come to J*sus 25 years earlier that would have been fantastic.
So if SF want to collectively lionise the RA, we can collectively call them out. Are we supposed to have sympathy that the sectarian nutters in their ranks made it difficult?, undefeated army or raggle taggle terrorists........
Use your loaf, no-one is saying that would cease for nothing, God knows they tore the absolute out of it in the end. All they needed to do was get over themselves with the 32 county demand, everything else was on the table. Their arrogance gave us an extra 25, that's the main mark against them. No-one is saying it would have been easy, but killing more was not going to bring back the dead of Derry, Ballymurphy and everwhere else. When we did the deal in '98, prisoners streamed out and the relatives of the dead just had to suck it up, maybe the RA could have sucked it up in the mid 70s and spared us all this, but no, everything must be on their terms, their dead, their heroes. Is it any wonder that so little has been achieved nearly 25 years on from a peace deal. #toxicshower
- police reform?
- ending of internment?
- criminalisation? Are you saying that in return for ending the violence those caught up in prison (prisoners of war) were being offered release, or were they to serve out the rest of their time as ordinary decent criminals?
- Flags and emblems Act, 1954. In case you hadn't noticed, that thing tends to provoke people up there.
This is an absurdity. The genie was out of the bottle, the sectarian statelet was exposed and, unsurprisingly some were determined to tear it down. Without political negotiation then violence would perpetuate. It wasn't one-sided.
How convenient for you. I'd prefer that too but every Easter my President keeps digging up the past acts of terrorism and tries to glorify it to me as some heroic noble deed.
Unfortunately, the events of 100yrs ago tie in very much to the events of 50yrs ago. Without partition, civil rights movement may not have been a thing.
Yes, and I'm asking why? How was it that it happened in August 1994 and not 1984, or 1974 as you seem to think it could have done?
I'm thinking the absence of any real political negotiation, policies of internment, criminalisation, censorship, torture, framing innocent people, shoot to kill, collusion with paramilitaries were still all the rage.
Perhaps that had something to do with it? Take your pick.
Maybe because the police were not trusted in nationalist areas, with good cause?
Even the Flags and Emblems Act 1954 was not repealed until 1987. I don't know about you but they tend to get touchy about that up there. The Irish tricolour being on display once being a source of some serious street disturbances.
And I'm reminded of Gerrys infamous "they haven't gone away ye know" quip at a rally in Belfast. While the righteous went into hyperbolic hysteria over such a quip what went unnoticed mostly was that the rally, designated an Irish Republican rally for All party peace talks.
It was the first rally with an Irish Republican designation, in the hisory of the NI statlet, that was permitted by authorities to rally in the centre of Belfast.
That was 1994/5. It took 70yrs for anyone of an Irish Republican political persuasion to be permitted to march in the centre of their own city expressing that political persuasion.
Yeh, maybe we all need to get over that? Unfortunately it appears from recent polling that a 32 county demand is still the preferred option by overwhelmingly majority on this island.
Then cease for what?
Rubbish. Name a point in time in the period from 1972 (the collapse of first ceasefire) to 1994 where they could have just stopped?
I'll start, January 1976
- starts with UVF sectarian slaughter of SDLP members O'Dowds and also Reavey brothers.
This would have been a good time for IRA to call a halt to the violence as it was in danger of spiralling out of control.
But human nature being human nature, revenge was also in the air, and there followed the Kingsmill massacre.
The Kingsmill massacre would have been a good time for UVF to call a halt to their campaign of violence as it was in danger of spiralling out of control, but alas, human nature being human nature, revenge was in the air...
As I mentioned before, the cycle of violence is hard to stop once the genie was out of the bottle. Political intervention was needed, sadly, it was not to be forthcoming until the Hume/Adams initiative. An initiative that was pilloried by many.
The same people who bemoan that the IRA could have stopped sooner were berating Hume for an initiative aimed at stopping the violence!
Last edited:
Yes, so negotiate then. It had gone from a one party state to power sharing even without the IRA on board, imagine what else could have been achieved. The Brits were talking in terms of timeframe for withdrawal, you're telling me Flags & Emblems would have been the rock on which a peace settlement perished??
How convenient for you that you insist it was all equivalent - did the GOIRA wage a 25 year campaign for absolutely nothing?, No, they didn't, I've already covered this. I'm sure Michaeldy is burnt from all the letters you're writing to him berating him.......
The UVF had already armed, 'Ulster' was not going into a Free State. You'll have to go back the the 1500s if you want to tie Ireland into a nice neat bow. After that you either accept that there's a people to be worked with or you go for ethnic cleansing - which is why, on their own doorstep, the UK government was never going to hand them to the IRA (the legitimate government of Ireland you understand.......). Brits Out is all well and good if it means you want a colonial army to go home, but what about all those who want to remain British who are left behind, upwards of a million of them at one time.
Or maybe it was that the RA was riddled with informers and any pretence of possible victory was gone. Maybe Gerry fancied chilling out in the Donegal villa. Are you seriously telling me that if the RA had negotiated a settlement that all the dark state activity above would have continued?
Well lucky enough there's this thing called democracy, been around a long time, if only we'd embraced it a bit more.......so we'll either vote for it or we wont.
If they had rowed in with Sunningdale they could have gotten powersharing that would have stuck - yes Paisley and Loyalists were against it but maybe the RA had something to do with that, what with blowing up the town. But not having any votes meant they weren't calling the ..errr.. shots in a democratic process, the RA don't respect democracy, they are they government, do what you're told....old habits die hard and even SF reps get the auld 'do what you're told', ah sure they're gas..... Shinners eh???
Agreed, probably not as hard as for those yet the die, or get maimed, or those belonging to them.
Ah, I see, the poor RA felt 'no-one likes us so we'll go bombing'. We're back to rhyming couplets again, "the same people said A & B". I supported Hume at the time. How was there every going to be peace without talks. At a government level you can't officially sit at a table with someone still bombing you, but of course there are always back channels - are you telling me that the RA were pacifists in waiting except no-one would talk to them? Even though they had talked to them before and did do again? Any....day.....of.....the......week.
Of course not, its just symbolic of the divided mindsets that sought to promote Ulster as entirely British in the face of a significant minority that see themselves as entirely Irish.
No, because the British government had the foresight to negotiate with them, instead of adopting the policies of 70's and 80's of a low level covert war.
And who were the UVF to decide that Ulster was theirs? Ulster is an ancient Irish province that is majority Catholic, majority nationalist.
But you know that already don't you? Lest you have bought into the incessant pounding of "Ulster is British!" propaganda.
Actually no, you just have to go back to pre-partition.
Ireland was a country where the Queen of England was welcomed onto the streets of Dublin in 1909. It was a country that was represented by political representatives in Westminster of both Orange and Green. It was a country where tens of thousands of men would fight for Britain's cause in Europe, far more than would ever take up arms to fight for the 'Republic'.
British government succumbed to threats of violence from UV and usurped the Home Rule parliament that was achieved through exclusively peaceful and democratic means.
When it became known that the British intended to suspend the HR Act, the IRB saw that Britain only answers to the gun and duly set about to plan the Rising.
They had no mandate, but they saw the will of the Irish people, represented at Westminster being shafted once more.
How can you negotiate if there is no one to negotiate with? It was Britains intention to try defeat the IRA. Billy Hutchinson testifies that loyalists were usec by British State agents to attack Catholic communities in the futile hope that those communities would turn against the IRA. It had the opposite effect.
In 1989 NI Secretary of State admitted that it was unlikely that they could defeat the IRA, so why did negotiations take so long to start?
They couldn't 'row in' with Sunningdale because they were not part of the negotiations. Had they been invited then perhaps issues around police reform anx prisoner releases - pivotal to Republican agenda - may have been a feature to disarm the conflict.
Instead it was an agreement negotiated by the centre parties, for the benefit of the centre parties, while those who were at each others throats, loyalist and republican, were to be excluded and criminalised.
In the end it loyalism that crashed the agreement. The offensive part being the Council of Ireland which gave the Irish state a say in matters. Similar large scale protests would repeat after Anglo Irish Agreement, Paisley "Never, never, never, never"...yet, 20yrs later he sat in a government as part of a political agreement that gives Irish government a say on matters. Imagine if loyalists had allowed Sunningdale a chance to work... so much more may have been achieved.
Exactly. So you point to me the period where meaningful talks were initiated and I will point to you the end of the conflict.
Last edited:
They were talking in 1972, Sunningdale was done in 1973. It wasn't that there was no-one to talk to it was what there was to talk about. There never was, before or after, the delivery of a 32 county republic. Until the RA could get their heads around that, there could never be a deal. I think anything else was on the table. It wasn't that the RA had amassed such military strength by 1998 that it hammered out a deal that could only be done then.
Yep. From wiki
"The IRA leaders refused to consider a peace settlement that did not include a commitment to British withdrawal to be completed by 1975, a retreat of the British Army to barracks and a release of republican prisoners. The British refused and the talks ended."
In 1972 the IRA, with some justification, thought they could force a British withdrawal. It was an incorrect analysis but it is wrong to think that they themselves did not believe they could force this.
was crashed by loyalists, not by the IRA. The "offending" article of a Council of Ireland that gave Republic a say on internal matters of NI. Similar protests in 1985 with Paisleys "never, never, never...", except 20yrs later he would sit in government supporting institutions that included a Council of Ireland.
If only loyalists had given Sunningdale a chance it may have disarmed support for the IRA.
Prisoner releases and police reform were never on the table until the negotiations leading to GFA. These two factors were pivotal to any negotiation.
Just a pity it took so long for political establishment to recognise this.
Duke of Marmalade
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,449
Never thought of it like that. Kingsmills was just human nature. Who hasn't at some stage in their lives wanted to go out and riddle all round them? All this hypocrisy about Kingsmills. Michael D - put a loaf of bread on your head.
Duke of Marmalade
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,449
Recent history lesson (this is a repeat of a repeat).
There wasn't a snowball's chance that PIRA would lay down arms following Sunningdale. Sunningdale was anathema to them. To the big boys, Danny, Grisly and Marty it was a negation of everything they stood for - a partitionist settlement. The prospect was that their Trojan horse of nationalist rights would also be doomed. And they would have no part in the future - the electorate soundly rejected them.
For the foot soldiers the prospects were even worse. Just a few short months since they were cock of the walk in the No Go areas they would be condemned to a boring life of picking up that apprenticeship that they dropped or more likely unemployment. So I don't blame the PIRA for rejecting Sunningdale - it was human nature. I doubt it was a conviction against that grotesque injustice, the Flags and Emblems Act (MOPE).
As Young Betsy has explained, what changed in the next 25 years was the realisation that the campaign was doomed or what Danny somewhat flatteringly described had reached a stalemate. But more important the Hunger Strike had catapulted the big boys of the PIRA movement into the electoral mainstream. They now saw a much brighter future in the ballot box than the Armalite. As I have said before Mrs T was the unsung heroine of the Peace Process.
There wasn't a snowball's chance that PIRA would lay down arms following Sunningdale. Sunningdale was anathema to them. To the big boys, Danny, Grisly and Marty it was a negation of everything they stood for - a partitionist settlement. The prospect was that their Trojan horse of nationalist rights would also be doomed. And they would have no part in the future - the electorate soundly rejected them.
For the foot soldiers the prospects were even worse. Just a few short months since they were cock of the walk in the No Go areas they would be condemned to a boring life of picking up that apprenticeship that they dropped or more likely unemployment. So I don't blame the PIRA for rejecting Sunningdale - it was human nature. I doubt it was a conviction against that grotesque injustice, the Flags and Emblems Act (MOPE).
As Young Betsy has explained, what changed in the next 25 years was the realisation that the campaign was doomed or what Danny somewhat flatteringly described had reached a stalemate. But more important the Hunger Strike had catapulted the big boys of the PIRA movement into the electoral mainstream. They now saw a much brighter future in the ballot box than the Armalite. As I have said before Mrs T was the unsung heroine of the Peace Process.